Re: [dane] AD review of draft-ietf-dane-smime-14

On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 9:28 AM, Marc Groeneweg <Marc.Groeneweg@sidn.nl> wrote:
>>>the IPR declaration's statement that licensing information
>>>will be provided "later."
> As we had with the keyrelay draft in regext (and the draft of Peter Koch with DNSSEC transfers).

Can you remind us what ended up happening with those two? I vaguely
remember some discussion about it being hard to get a commitment, and
that "later" seemed like a DoS on the process, but was there ever a
resolution?

Is the WG OK with this, or do you feel that we need to try and get the
IPR statement updated? (Remembering that, AFAIK, we cannot do anything
other than ask nicely...)

W

>
> <SNAP/>
>
>> I see that Verisign has offered a free-unless-you-sue-us license for
>> other patent applications, like this one, dunno why they do for some
>> but not others:
>>
>>    https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2703/
> Other than that the suggested draft is also by Verisign themselves?
>
>> In any event, you alrady know what my suggested solution is.
>
> Regards,
> Marc
>
> _______________________________________________
> dane mailing list
> dane@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane

-- 
I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
idea in the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
of pants.
   ---maf